free will vs natural determinism

[Skwim]

1) So it's not a scientific conclusion.

Correct. There's no science involved.

The idea that random events only occur at the quantum level PRESUMES that my decisions couldn't have been anything other than what they are. So again, how can this be tested?

I don't believe it can tested . The only thing I can see that would invalidate determinism is to demonstrate an uncaused event.

2) Em, wave-particle duality is a single theory NOW. It is a synthesis of two completely separate AND mutually exclusive theories. The so-what is that the 'simplest' explanation for what appears to be mutual exclusion is often a reformulation of underlying concepts, rather than choosing between them. In other words, given our current understanding of free will and determinism, the two may seem to be mutually exclusive. But perhaps it's our current understanding of these concepts that are inaccurate. Concepts seldom represent reality 100%.

The development of the self may be 100% deterministic. I am what I am and could be nothing else. However, now that I am what I am, any choice I make is a result of ME, not something external. If multiverse is correct, it would be 100% in contradiction to the idea that I could not have chosen other than I did.

DISCLAIMER: I don't know what I'm talking about, just thinking and looking to learn.

Me either.

 

[Thruve]

Certain things must be determined so that the free will of all can be expressed.

As all have an equal right to expression of their free will, all must willingly submit to that which which necessarily supersedes their will or determines certain things for them in some circumstances, in order to ensure free will for all.

The expression of free will by all must be limited to things which benefit all or, at the very least, harm none.

In other words, free will should not be allowed to destroy its foundation.

Free will has the potential to destroy everything and everyone. Therefore, how it should and should not be used must be determined.

This does not hinder free will, it frees the will of all from conflict and time wasted in conflict.

Lovely agreed.

 

[idav]

It's a matter of elimination of operatives. Consider; things happen in one of two ways, either they're caused or they're uncaused, and happen for no reason at all and therefore are absolutely random. So far the only place where absolutely random events are thought to occur is at the quantum level. This means that everything that happens on the super atomic level, the one on which we function, is caused. And this leaves causation as the operating engine of our will. Our will does what it does because it's caused to do so; it is not free to do any differently. So the notion that it can do differently, an act of freewill, stands in opposition to the reality that it can't.

So what? And actually, wave–particle duality is a single theory,

It isnt random. As an example it has two probable effects from two physically different spins.

 

[Willamena]

And this leaves causation as the operating engine of our will. Our will does what it does because it's caused to do so; it is not free to do any differently. So the notion that it can do differently, an act of freewill, stands in opposition to the reality that it can't.

Being caused to do something is not "our will," it's against our will.

Our will is doing something.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The only thing I can see that would invalidate determinism is to demonstrate an uncaused event.

That would be the big bang in the standard model, the instantaneous interactions that define quantum entanglement, and a slew of other phenomena from retrocausality to circular causality that are both more relevant and more complicated (both in terms of understanding and in determining how they are "uncaused", as with the big bang and entanglement things are relatively straightforward).

 

[Estro Felino]

Are free will and natural determinism in contradiction?

Any human being is endowed with freewill, unless they are mental people or retards.

It is true that there are people who have much less strength of will than others, so they naively believe they have no freewill

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Any human being is endowed with freewill, unless they are mental people or retards.

I find the above incredibly offensive and despicable.

It is true that there are people who have much less strength of will than others, so they naively believe they have no freewill

It is also true that there are those capable of understanding that "any human being is..." followed by a qualifier "unless they are..." is nonsense. It should be "Every human being is...".

There goes your free will.

Alternatively, being a person you experience mental states and are therefore "mental" to the extent this means anything other than the use of offensive and ridiculously ignorant nomenclature. Ergo, you lack free will.

 

[Skwim]

It isnt random. As an example it has two probable effects from two physically different spins.

And, I can go along with the notion that there are no uncaused events; however, I have seen it stated that in the quantum world uncaused random events do occur, which is why I hedged my statement about them, saying " So far the only place where absolutely random events are thought to occur is at the quantum level."

At the 1' 45" mark of this video is the following remark.

"There's actually a controversy among scientists about what to say about causation at the quantum level. They don't all agree that there are quantum events without causes."
​

Implying that there are scientists who believe there are uncaused quantum events.

 

[Skwim]

Being caused to do something is not "our will," it's against our will.

But, just what is this will that can do X without being caused to do it? How does X arrive on the scene?

Our will is doing something.

And I say it's doing what it's been caused to do, and can do no differently.

 

[outhouse]

But, just what is this will that can do X without being caused to do it? How does X arrive on the scene?

And I say it's doing what it's been caused to do, and can do no differently.

So it was not your will, who's will was it to type your reply?


The forum didn't tell you to pervert the words, only your free will to express your opinion did.

 

[Skwim]

So it was not your will, who's will was it to type your reply?

Taking the meaning of "will" as the operating agent at a convergence of cause/effects, that would be me.

The forum didn't tell you to pervert the words, only your free will to express your opinion did.

What is the will free from that would make the term "freewill" comprehensible? To answer, in the freewill v. determinism debate that would be determining causes. The will is free from determining causes, which, as I've pointed out, would leave it operating entirely at random.

 

[idav]

And, I can go along with the notion that there are no uncaused events; however, I have seen it stated that in the quantum world uncaused random events do occur, which is why I hedged my statement about them, saying " So far the only place where absolutely random events are thought to occur is at the quantum level."

At the 1' 45" mark of this video is the following remark.

"There's actually a controversy among scientists about what to say about causation at the quantum level. They don't all agree that there are quantum events without causes."
​

Implying that there are scientists who believe there are uncaused quantum events.

I just don't think free will requires a creation event.

 

[outhouse]

Taking the meaning of "will" as the operating agent at a convergence of cause/effects, that would be me.

What is the will free from that would make the term "freewill" comprehensible? To answer, in the freewill v. determinism debate that would be determining causes. The will is free from determining causes, which, as I've pointed out, would leave it operating entirely at random.

That's more word salad then Denny's offers on a Sunday afternoon buffet.

 

[Thruve]

That's more word salad then Denny's offers on a Sunday afternoon buffet.

You really like the term word salad. lol?

 

[Skwim]

That's more word salad then Denny's offers on a Sunday afternoon buffet.

Sorry. Didn't mean to confuse. Let's try again

But, just what is this will that can do X without being caused to do it? How does X arrive on the scene?

And I say it's doing what it's been caused to do, and can do no differently.

So it was not your will, who's will was it to type your reply?

Didn't say it wasn't my will. It was mine.

The forum didn't tell you to pervert the words, only your free will to express your opinion did.

I disagree that my will is free.

We okay now?​

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Taking the meaning of "will" as the operating agent at a convergence of cause/effects, that would be me.

Yet you don't describe it so:

But, just what is this will that can do X without being caused to do it? How does X arrive on the scene?

And I say it's doing what it's been caused to do, and can do no differently.

You speak of will as an "it" and from a first-person/"I" perspective. Either this "will" is the operating agent (in which case one wonders why the confusion between the "free agent" and the will that agent exercises), or it is that which the operating agent is capable of. If the former, than we shift the question from how it is possible for free will to work to how "will" is able to exercise whatever we now label "free will". If the latter, than you are conflating the property the operating agent possesses or capacity the operating agent has with the operating agent.

What is the will free from that would make the term "freewill" comprehensible?

Fatalism & determinism.

Spoiler: Background information

The latter is rather easily illustrated by looking at how people came to believe the world was deterministic at all: motion/mechanics. Once Galileo and his contemporaries (and their successors) began to create models that could be used to predict "effects" before they happened, they were essentially asserting that certain objects/bodies behaved deterministically. At first, this was no big deal. We already had the (flawed) mechanics of Aristotle. However, it wasn't until e.g., Galileo, Kepler, Fermat, and especially Newton & Leibniz that "determinism" (a word/concept of the 19th century) even could really exist. But once we had increasingly successful theories allowing us to predict the dynamics of systems via a deterministic physics, it became possible to consider a universe in which all things were governed by a set of physical laws that, if one knew them and knew the necessary initial conditions, could allow the prediction of everything and anything (at least in principle).

Before classical physics became "classical" we had plenty of evidence to supporting both the reductionist and deterministic interpretations/frameworks and little to challenge them. Thus it was not only entirely naturally to ask how, in a universe that operated entirely according to deterministic laws of physics, the sense of agency we all experience could exist.

This is not to say that without quantum physics the universe actually does operate according to an entirely deterministic physics. It is simply that until fairly recently we didn't really have anything other than subjective experience to suggest otherwise. That is no longer true (i.e., there are reasons to think that even at scales at which quantum physics become essentially classical, neither determinism nor reductionism are adequate to explain all phenomena and in particular fail when it comes to living systems).

To answer, in the freewill v. determinism debate that would be determining causes.

Determinism is generally regarded as the metaphysical/philosophical view that external forces determine the behavior of all systems according to universal and general laws. A system capable of determining it's own behavior is by definition not governed by determinism.

The will is free from determining causes, which, as I've pointed out, would leave it operating entirely at random.

1) There is no single definition of "random" even within specific fields of mathematics & the sciences.
2) Quantum physics is neither deterministic nor random, so why are these the only two options?

 

[Estro Felino]

Alternatively, being a person you experience mental states and are therefore "mental" to the extent this means anything other than the use of offensive and ridiculously ignorant nomenclature. Ergo, you lack free will.

Maybe I have no hair on my tongue...but I do take decisions I like...
It's other people who may dislike my decisions. But it's their free will, not mine

 

[Nakosis]

That's a good formulation of the notion. But one might ask what is this "will" that is able to act of its own volition?

The more one examines the question, the more absurd the notion becomes.

Me, I usually define as desire. However in this case it is a process the mind uses to determine a course of action.

I think generally a person weighs their desires and chooses a course of action they feel will accomplish the majority of or what they feel is the most important of those desires.

 

[Willamena]

But, just what is this will that can do X without being caused to do it?

It is essentially the idea that "me" is capable of "doing," and particularly of what "me," the objective case of the first person pronoun, is capable of doing. "I" doesn't objectively exist, but "me" does a whole lot of interacting with the world anyway, and that makes it real.

How does X arrive on the scene?

By conscious observation. "I did X."

And I say it's doing what it's been caused to do, and can do no differently.

If I bend your arm to cause you to eat your green beans, that action is technically against your will, not by your will.

 

[Nakosis]

Being caused to do something is not "our will," it's against our will.

Our will is doing something.

This is a very compatibilist view, which is fine.

However I think the question is whether we have any control over our will?

Can we choose what we desire? Our desire controls our will. Can we control our desire?